Analysis of the Iraq War / Analyse des Irak-Krieges

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

“The Iraq Crisis and the International Order” is an interesting analysis (in German) by Prof. Joachim Krause of Kiel University’s Institute for Security Policy.

His main conclusions:

There is no indication of any basis for the assumption that US policy is guided by a selfish interest in securing energy sources. By contrast, one is led to conclude that, above all, the French and Russian positions have been determined by very narrowly defined financial interests in crude oil exploration in Iraq.

The German position on the Iraq crisis has been characterized by an undifferentiated pacificism and an anti-American populism that has led to a serious degradation of trans-Atlantic solidarity.

Given his advocacy of these theses, Prof. Krause has little hope of being cited frequently as an expert by the German media.

(Hat tip Franz)

(Translation by Hartmut Lau)

Deutsche Übersetzung

Eine interessante Analyse von Prof. Joachim Krause vom Institut für Sicherheitspolitik der Uni Kiel: "Die Krise um den Irak und die internationale Ordnung".

Wesentliche Schlußfolgerungen:

Für die Annahme, wonach die Politik der USA primär durch egoistische Energieinteressen geleitet seien, findet sich kein Anhaltspunkt. Hingegen liegt eher der Schluss nahe, dass vor allem die Haltungen Frankreichs und Russlands durch sehr eng definierte finanzielle Interessen an Erdölexploration im Irak bestimmt sind.

Die deutsche Position zur Irak-Krise ist durch einen undifferenzierten Pazifismus und Amerikakritischen Populismus charakterisiert, der zu einer schweren Belastung des transatlantischen Zusammenhalts geführt hat.

Mit solchen Thesen hat Prof. Krause kaum Chancen, von deutschen Medien häufig als Experte zitiert zu werden...

(Hat tip Franz)

Comments

[Karl B.]

Give the man a round of applause. Amidst all the deafening chatter of "Freidensmacht Deutschland" -- those Europawahl ads are sickening -- someone has the clarity of vision to call things by their name. That was the single biggest failing of the German media during this period. Where were the critical voices pointing out the terrible conflicts of interest motivating France, Russia and Germany?

[Karl B.]

BTW, Klink and anyone else interested, Joffe did an interview with Perle in yesterday's Die Zeit. These guys have been demonized so much over here that I'm always pleasantly surprised by just how differentiated their thinking is.

[Karl B.]

Sorry for the triple post, but I stumbled on an interesting article by Matt Welch in Reason Online on media bias, or the lack thereof.

http://www.reason.com/links/links052704.shtml

[Gabi]

Zum Thema Kaplan, der keine Lust auf "Dialog" hatte.

"... Der Ansehensverlust ist enorm: Ausgerechnet im Kampf gegen den kriminellen Islamismus, der härtesten Herausforderung für die innere Sicherheit in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik, erlauben sich die Behörden einen Mangel an Wachsamkeit. Obwohl die Gefahr ständig wächst. Es ist gerade elf Wochen her, dass in Madrid mehr als 190 Menschen dem Terror zum Opfer fielen.

Der Fall Kaplan ist jedoch nur ein Symptom. Die eigentliche Misere ist ein Mangel an Gespür für die Nähe und das Ausmaß der islamistischen Bedrohung. Das gilt für die Behörden wie für die Bevölkerung...

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/index.asp?gotos=http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/toolbox-neu.php?ran=on&url=http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/28.05.2004/1151140.asp#art

[Joe]

I would like to see "enablers" given front billing for academic articles, especially those from the many institutes in Kiel. I had never heard of that Institute before, but was pleasantly surprised at their academic accomplishments--topographical as they might be. Your frankfurters are without compare and your redlight district is the seediest I have ever seen (yes that includes Asia, but at heart, I am a prude).

[DDD]

Das Interview mit Perle in der Zeit konnte ich online leider nicht finden, bin aber bei der Suche auf einen anderen interessanten Artikel gestossen. Dieser berichtet anerkennend ueber die New York Times, die aktuell ihre eigenen Berichte von vor dem Krieg kritisch hinterfrage. Und schliesst mit dem Absatz:
"Tatsächlich setzt die New York Times ein Beispiel, indem sie ins Archiv geht und ihre eigene Berichterstattung an der Realität misst. Sicher wären auch deutsche Archive für uns deutsche Zeitungsredakteure eine Fundgrube. Mit der Times ließe sich fragen, ob die Berichterstattung vor dem Irakkrieg ein großes Prinzip des Journalismus verletzt hat: die Regierungsferne."
Wobei man da oft gar nicht so weit in die Vergangenheit blicken muesste.

[N C]

DDD, den Artikel habe ich auch gelesen, ich denke aber, dass kritisiert wird, man sei zu pro-war gewesen, zu Bush-gläubig.

Focus macht nach fast 6 Wochen zu folgendem Ergenis: Der Terrorführer Osama Bin Laden versucht, "Europa und die USA in der Frage der Behandlung des Irak-Konflikts, der Palästinenserproblematik sowie im Kampf gegen den islamistischen Terrorismus zu spalten." Dies habe die Analyse des letzten Videos vom 15. April 2004 ergeben.

Darauf sollten sich die Medien mehr konzentrieren.

[Gabi]

Wolfgang Koydl interviewt William Kristol. Lesenswert!

http://www.weltwoche.ch/artikel/?AssetID=7807&CategoryID=62

"... Dieses Argument wird in Europa nicht richtig verstanden: Die Sanktionen [gegen den Irak] wären früher oder später aufgehoben worden, es wurde ohnehin schon enormer Druck ausgeübt. Wir hätten es also mit einem Saddam zu tun gehabt ohne Sanktionen, mit Öleinnahmen und fähig, Massenvernichtungswaffen zu bekommen. Was hätte das bedeutet für seine Nachbarn, für die Region, für Amerika, für den Westen, für unsere Fähigkeit, den Terror zu bekämpfen? Wir hatten gute Argumente, wir trugen sie gut vor, und das haben die meisten Leute intuitiv verstanden. Deshalb ist die Unterstützung erstaunlich stark ausgefallen. ..."

Wie war noch einmal die Antwort Schröders darauf? Null Antwort. Diese Thema wird stets ignoriert. Wie auch hier im Blog. Keine Antworten der Gegner des Irakkrieges.

[DDD]

N C: Natuerlich! Und das war auch so. Die amerikanischen Medien waren zu Bush-glaeubig, die deutschen zu Schroeder-glaeubig.
Der letzte Absatz spielt darauf an, aber auch darauf, dass die amerikanischen Medien das mittlerweile erkannt haben und ausgewogener berichten, die deutschen aber nicht.

[Gabi]

Im editorial findet sich folgende Passage über das Interview mit Kristol:

"Die amerikanischen Neokonservativen haben in Europa eine verheerende Presse, sie gelten als ideologisch geschlossener Block von Rechthabern. Eine Fehldiagnose, wie das Interview mit William Kristol, einem ihrer wichtigsten Exponenten, belegt. Kristol verlangt schon seit längerem den Rücktritt von Verteidigungsminister Rumsfeld. Zur Situation im Irak redet er Tacheles: «Die Wahrheit ist, es wird ein Durchwursteln bleiben.» Und er fordert Präsident Bush auf, in den nächsten Wochen sämtliche Termine abzusagen, um mit seinen engsten Beratern seine Strategie einer intensiven Prüfung zu unterziehen. «Werden die Weichen jetzt nicht entsprechend gestellt, steuern er und wir auf eine Niederlage zu.» (siehe Artikel zum Thema «Interview: William Kristol, Doyen der amerikanischen Neokonservativen»)"

Kristol sagt das zwar in dem Interview, aber er bringt sehr viel mehr Positives, Glauben an die richtige Entscheidung, er bringt die Hoffnung zum Ausdruck, daß dem Irak doch nicht geholfen werden kann. Da im editorial all das nicht erwähnt wird, wirkt dies so, als würde sich Kristol gegen Bush aussprechen, was er tatsächlich nicht tut. Kristol spricht sich beispielsweise jetzt gegen einen Rücktritt Rumsfeld aus. Das editorial zeigt klar, wie man durch Anreihung der negativen Postulate einen falschen Eindruck von der Gesamtaussage des Artikels machen kann, wobei ich denke, daß dies hier eher zufällig war, nicht so seht böse Absicht wie in deutschen Medien. Oder?

[Klink]

@Karl B.
BTW, Klink and anyone else interested, Joffe did an interview with Perle in yesterday's Die Zeit.

Tx for pointing out, I had missed it else. Perle is the only Neo-Conservative (SFN) whom I usually enjoy reading. (Das ZEIT-Interview ist hier zu finden. Werd ich später lesen)

@N C
Der Terrorführer Osama Bin Laden versucht, "Europa und die USA in der Frage der Behandlung des Irak-Konflikts, der Palästinenserproblematik sowie im Kampf gegen den islamistischen Terrorismus zu spalten."

Bei Bush muss man da nicht viel dazu tun, oder? Man braucht nur an Wolfowitz's Zitat mit "liberation of France" vor dem Krieg denken. Weshalb Osama auch im Stillen dafür ist, daß Bush im Amt bleibt - denn Bush ist der grösserer Polarisierer/Spalter.

@Gabi zitierte aus Weltwoche:
Wir hätten es also mit einem Saddam zu tun gehabt ohne Sanktionen, mit Öleinnahmen und fähig, Massenvernichtungswaffen zu bekommen.

Wieso der Konjunktiv mit "hätten" und "fähig zu bekommen"? Der Mann hatte doch schon gigantische Lager an Massenvernichtungswaffen laut damaliger Bush-Regierung. Nun mal nicht ein Jahr nach dem Krieg plötzlich in den Konjunktiv wechseln und mit vagen Zukunftsprognosen Dinge nachträglich mit ganz anderen Argumenten rechtfertigen.

[James]

Should it really come as any surprise to the German Elites that what the professor has proposed could be true?

1) What "profit" has been made by the USA? In fact, the budget it is in deficit 4.7% (Germany has 3.7%)
2) What possibly could have been better under Saddam (300,000 dead, 3 wars, vehement hostility)?
3) The US broke the unity of the UN? Unity like : the six day war, Korean war, Vietnam war, The 2 Berlin Crisis?

Given American commitment to Germany since the second world war (but not reciprocal: Germany has yet to pay back the Marshall Plan, Norway, for instance, has), I find it saddening that the Germans would embrace their French neighbors clear agenda of debunking America (what has France ever done for you?). The UN is a shining city on a hill, have a look at the UN for oil scam and who benefited : http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/cat_almada_list_of_270.html (Kofie Annan's son Kojo is at its center).

Either Schröder :
* has no vision (it's the economy stupid)
* has never read history and therefor never been on the right side of it
* is a communist
* just exploited the German visceral response of their attitudes to war ( a whole book could be written on this subject) and got re-elected. The old bait and switch tactic, eh?

But what really bewilders most Americans is how the German media embraces conspiracy theories instead of proof and logic. How the media ignores history, or presents it falsely ( ARD is an excellent example - and we HAVE to pay GEZ tax for this!). How the German media willfully ignores Americans historical commitment to this country and many others, that once embarked on this avenue, and logically it is bad to be on the wrong-side. Having never defended the democratic institutions (the UN and your constitution) that you now embrace, how the Chancellor can willfully flip his nose at the USA is pure contempt, hostile and without mature reflection.

[Klink]

Frau Gabriele kommentierte:
... er [Kristol] bringt die Hoffnung zum Ausdruck, daß dem Irak doch nicht geholfen werden kann.

Freudscher?

[Samir al-Iraqi]

@ Kling

Du kannst nicht bestreiten, dass Frankreich, sogar mehr als Russland, der aussenpolitische Advokat Saddams (nicht des Iraks) war.

Frankreich hat vor dem Krieg die Sanktionen mit PR-Aktionen gebrochen.
Chirak´s erste aussenpolitische Amtshandlung war es, einen Botschafter nach Bagdad zu verschicken.
Frankreich hat das Ba'ath-Regime aktiv unterstützt, und nicht nur aus Profitgier.

Wenn die Konjunktive nur zum kleinen Teil wahr wären, wären wir nicht mehr hier.

Und niemand sollte die Entschlossenheit und Absicht Saddam´s bezweifeln, Menschen zu töten.

P.S. mach mal nen blog auf.

[Gabi]

Don't forget to read the Iraqi blogs. Here is one great posting:

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Knowing the enemy.
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Many people accepted these words following 9/11. America, and the west in general, were shocked by those terrorist attacks motivated by utter hatred for civilization and humanity. I was one of those who agreed with this new concept and I don’t recall many objections to that phrase at those times, even from the Arab and Muslim governments.

As time passed, many people-including some Americans- seemed to have forgot all about those horrible attacks and started to view that concept as somewhat extreme and over reacting.

I still believe in the truth that lie in that phrase and the reason for this is that I have lived under Saddam. Thus I think I’m more aware of the nature of the enemy as a result of dealing with him day after day for all my life. We were either with Saddam or against him and there was no place in between, simply because the nature of that regime forced us to be either with or against. There was no place for negotiation or dialogue and the proofs for that are millions of dead, more than a million missing, more than 5 million refuge and hundreds of thousands of handicapped and the highest incidence rate of mental and psychological illnesses. Many of those were not against Saddam; they were just not with him.

The American administration comprehended the magnitude and the nature of the threat. This is nothing like the cold war because the enemy then was different. There was an ideology that disagreed with the west and claim to have noble goals and the communist project stimulate you to think deeply. Communism found itself forced to communicate with the opponent and even cooperate with him in trying to solve many problems in the world that didn’t serve the interests of either part.

When that enemy recognized that his ideology was on its way to be defeated, he surrendered with honor that makes you really respect him when you put in mind the massive military and political power he had. He gave up all his dreams and didn’t use violence because he didn’t want to destroy himself and the others.

At those times there were parts of the world that refuse to ally, at least not strongly, to either one of the superpowers. Some countries had the luxury of staying rather away from that conflict, and they had the option of approaching either side according to where their interests lied without risking a lot.

The policy of managing the crises was somewhat appropriate for those times and was not what can be considered as a bad policy. It was accompanied by many mistakes but it managed to protect the world from much worse expected disasters.

It seems that many people are still thinking in the same manner that was predominant at the cold war times. The majority of Americans and Iraqis grasp the nature of the threat as a result of their direct contact with the enemy and that needs to be shown to the others.

The new enemy differs from all the previous ones in that he doesn’t have or even claim to have any constructive ideology. He doesn’t bring us anything other than the seeds of death and destruction “either you surrender to me or I kill you”. As for an alternative ideology, it doesn’t exist. Moreover the willingness to initiate a dialogue was never expressed or shown to be a possibility.

This enemy don’t want to indulge himself in a productive talk, he never show himself in public except when he’s loaded with explosives and stern desire to kill as many people as possible regardless of their religion, ethnicity and nationality. His main goal is of course destruction of the western civilization, but he wouldn’t care if it involved taking the lives of even “Muslim brothers” during the course, as it's shown in Iraq. He says it frankly, “you’re either with me or against me” it was his choice in the first place not ours. Those who don’t believe in this will pay dearly, not at the hands of the Americans, for sure but at the hands of the terrorists whom they’re appeasing.

There’s no place in between in this war and that’s because of the nature of the enemy. That’s why I was never intimidated by the American administration’s speech. I see it as the closest thing to reality and I greatly commend the wisdom and courage of the other coalition countries that decide to join the US by benefiting from the experience of the others.

I think that the majority agrees that the international organizations that were founded after WW2 have proved to be too weak than to be trusted in leading humanity to make the right decisions. This is so obvious from their confusion during crises that only lead to further disturbance and add to the obstacles that face the countries that have the will and the means to solve those crises. The whole world should acknowledge the necessity of reviewing the performance of such organizations.

Now to the most important point: Is their any retreat in front of the enemy? Is there any regret and tendency to go back to managing crises instead of solving them? Is there really a will to go back and depend on stale organization like the UN to handle such a crucial issue as the future of Iraq?

I don’t know what exactly is on the mind of the American administration and what exactly their intentions are, but I know that it’s absolutely wrong in this stage and with the existing threats to go back to the old policy, and I know that the coalition has the capabilities and the strength to defeat the enemy.

This war demands great determination, patience and faith on the parts of the governments and the people. For me, an Iraqi citizen, the American administration has never failed me, not yet. I hope that they keep the course, otherwise the loss will be that of the whole humanity and I doubt if it can ever be overcome.

-By Mohammed.

- posted by Omar @ 19:33

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[Gabi]

Nonie Darwish hat ein Botschaft an alle Frauen im Nahen Osten: "Es liegt in euren Händen, eure Gesellschaft zu verändern. Seid nicht mehr unterwürfig, indem ihr eure Männer und Söhne dem Martyrium übergebt. Was für eine Tragödie ist es, wenn ihr den Tod eurer Söhne als Selbstmordattentäter feiert… Die Menschen, die euch zu eurem geliebten 'Schahid'-Vater oder Sohn gratulieren, sind dieselben, die euch als liederliche Frauen kritisieren werden, wenn sie sehen, wie ihr euer Haus allein ohne einen Mann verlasst, um euer Leben zu führen… Sie sind bereit, Generation für Generation von Frauen als junge Witwen und Kinder als Waisen zu opfern. Wozu?"

http://www.israelnetz.de/show.sxp/israelnetz/6607.html

[Joe]

@James,

Have you considered two things. The first is Schröder is in fact all of those things.

The second is that Germans are really anti-American.

That both of these are possible seems to be a logical conclusion when viewing the actions which have taken place to date.

[Gabi]

More from a smart and couragous woman:

"...Bush apologized for the humiliation and abuse of Iraqi prisoners. His apology was taken by the Arab media and the ‘Arab Street’ as an admission of guilt and a sign of weakness. It was not appreciated as taking responsibility to find out the truth behind the events that happened due to the actions of a few Americans.

If 19 Americans had committed a terrorist act comparable to 9/11, and belonged to a terrorist American network against any nation on earth, the reactions on all sides would have been very different than what we have seen, due to our cultural differences. Any sitting US president would apologize and take immediate action to stop the terror coming from America. Americans would be outraged. In our ‘politically correct’ liberal culture, the media and academia would urge all of our citizens to a collective self-psychoanalysis, to uncover the ‘root causes’ of how WE could have caused such evil behavior. They might find the American terrorists to be victims of the American culture that drove them to become monsters, and will blame themselves and everything American for their behavior. A cultural war will break out with each camp blaming the other for the creation of American terrorists. Money to fund studies will start pouring into college campuses and think tanks to get to the bottom of the issue.

This is not the case in the Arab World..."

read more here

Her name is Nonie Darwish.

[James]

@Joe

Thanks for the PJ O'Rourke article!

Schröder is really of no global or historic consequence. I think that it's not healthy on our intelligent minds to waste brain cells over him. In 20 years Kohl's assertion that Schröder "has never been on the right side of history," will come to fruition...

"The second is that Germans are really anti-American."

I don't know. I think that they claim that that they just don't like Bush. I don't like him either, but I agreed with the Iraq invasion. I would have preferred McCain. What I don't like is that "overnight" Germans, spurred by the media, have bought into this whole hatred of Bush and demonize America. Forgetting that we were the ones that helped them back on their own two feet and pledged our cities with nuclear destruction by the Soviets... It's easier to watch the media and digest its contents while eating a frozen pizza than to read articles, books and have mature discussions...

But, I think the Germans just don't like themselves in many ways. Maybe they are just jealous of our success? Everyday, I see colleagues always concerned with how much you earn, what do you have, where you went on holiday, why he has this and that, if you're washing your car on a Sunday, etc. And I'll say it, Germans are more materialistic than Americans. At least, in the USA/Canada/NZ/UK/Australia, you can have these material things without insecure feelings of what your neighbor has. Furthermore it's considered rude in these countries to stick your nose into it : concept of Liberty. I guess that one gets jealous of one’s neighbor if they have more in the perfect socialist system?

This current "schism," created by Schröder's wahltaktik (as far as I'm concerned), has deeper issues:

Germany is in absolute economic decline, and wages are far lower here than in America. Americans are far more positive about the future than the Germans who are in a state of malaise. Additionally any common-sensed individual knows that were it not for Americans cold war stance against the Soviets and continued mission in the world, Germany would have been left to starve to death. Survivors would have been recruited into Uncle Joe's "world revolution." This coupled with Germany's history and help from across the Atlantic leaves them grappling when confronted with knowing what is the right thing to do. And often that answer never comes...

Don't forget that jealousy, envy and contempt are all closely related emotions...

Secretary Powell on Memorial Day

Every Memorial Day, my sister, Marilyn, and I would put on our Sunday best and accompany our parents to Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx to visit the graves of family members. Like all kids, my sister and I were happy to have the day off from school, and I can't say we were in a solemn frame of mind. But taking part in that annual rite of remembrance gave me my first sense of the importance of honoring those who have gone before.

I grew up and chose a soldier's life. I lost close friends in war. Later, I commanded young men and women who went willingly into harm's way for our country, some never to return. A day doesn't pass that I don't think of them. Paying homage to the fallen holds a deeply personal meaning for me and for anyone who ever wore a uniform.

In 1990, when I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I took my Soviet counterpart, Gen. Mikhail Moiseyev, around the United States. I wanted to give him a better understanding of what America is all about. We started in Washington, D.C. I especially wanted to take him to the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial.

But I didn't take him there directly. First, I took him to the Jefferson Memorial. I pointed out a passage from the Declaration of Independence carved into its curved wall. All who have served in our armed forces share its sentiment. "And for the support of this Declaration," Jefferson wrote, "... we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour." Then I asked the general to look up. Above the statue of Jefferson, in 2-foot-high letters on the base of the monument's dome, is this inscription: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Here, I said, you see the foundation of America, a nation where "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." I told the general that like Washington, Jefferson and all our Founding Fathers, Americans of every generation are ready to fight and die for those unalienable rights.

Then, to show Gen. Moiseyev the kind of sacrifices Americans are willing to make, I took him to the Lincoln Memorial, where Lincoln's words at Gettysburg are engraved. There, Lincoln said we had fought the bloodiest war in our history so our nation "shall have a new birth of freedom" and so "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." I wanted Gen. Moiseyev to see how sacred those words are to Americans.

I showed the general the final lines of Lincoln's second inaugural address: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan..."

I then walked the general part of the way down the Lincoln Memorial's steps to the place from which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. I explained that the unfinished work of which Lincoln spoke was still unfinished a century later, so from the very spot on which we stood, King challenged his fellow Americans to make the promise of our Founding Fathers come true for all Americans.

Only now was I ready to take Gen. Moiseyev to the Vietnam memorial. We walked the short distance from the Lincoln Memorial to the Wall. I showed the general how to find someone's name on it. I looked up Maj. Tony Mavroudis. Tony and I had grown up together on the streets of New York. We went to college together. We became infantrymen together. And in 1967, on his second tour of duty in Vietnam, Tony was killed. The memorial book directed us to Panel 28 East, and there we found ANTONIO M MAVROUDIS carved into the black granite. It was an emotional moment for me, and not just for me. Gen. Moiseyev reached out gently and touched the Wall. The infantryman in him understood.

Thankfully, our forces no longer face the prospect of war with the Soviet Union. Today, we are cooperating with Russia's evolving democracy and with other former foes against 21st-century dangers common to us all. Today's deadly threats come from rogue powers and stateless networks of extremists who have nothing but contempt for the sanctity of human life and for the principles civilized nations hold dear.

I do not know or care what terrorists and tyrants make of our monuments to democracy and the memorials we dedicate to our dead. What's important is what the monuments and memorials say to us. They can teach us much about the ideas that unite us in our diversity, the values that sustain us in times of trial, and the dream that inspires generation after generation of ordinary Americans to perform extraordinary acts of service. In short, our monuments and memorials tell us a great deal about America's commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

The haunting symbolism of the 168 empty chairs at the Oklahoma City National Memorial, the heartbreaking piles of shoes in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the carefully tended headstones bearing crosses, crescents and Stars of David standing row-on-row in Arlington and our other national cemeteries - all speak to the value we place on human life.

The Vietnam Women's Memorial of the three servicewomen and the wounded GI; the Korean War Veterans Memorial's haggard, windblown patrol trudging up the rugged terrain; and the memorial of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima do not glorify war - they testify to the glory of the human spirit.

The Civil War battlefields and the monument in Boston to Robert Gould Shaw and his 54th Massachusetts Regiment of Negro soldiers who rode together into the jaws of death for the cause of justice tell us of the price past generations have paid so we might live in a more perfect union. They remind us also of the work our generation must do.

This Memorial Day weekend, we will join in celebrating the opening of the National World War II Memorial honoring the great generation of Americans who saved the world from fascist aggression and secured the blessings of liberty for hundreds of millions of people around the world.

Today, their descendants are fighting the global war against terrorism, serving and sacrificing in Afghanistan and Iraq and at other outposts on the front lines of freedom. The life of each and every one of them is precious to their loved ones and to our nation. And each life given in the name of liberty is a life that has not been lost in vain.

In time, lasting memorials will stand where the Twin Towers once etched New York City's skyline, near the west side of the Pentagon, and in the Pennsylvania field where doomed heroes died on Sept. 11, 2001, using their last moments to save the lives of others and most probably the Capitol or the White House - symbols of our living democracy.

All of us lead busy lives. We have little time to pause and reflect.

But I ask of you: Do not hasten through Memorial Day. Take the time to remember the good souls whose memories are a blessing to you and your family. Take your children to our memorial parks and monuments. Teach them the values that lend meaning to our lives and to the life of our nation. Above all, take the time to honor our fellow Americans who have given their last full measure of devotion to our country and for the freedoms we cherish.

[Sandy P]

Mein Gott en/in Himmel, I'm starting to understand some small German words.

[Joe]

@James

I disagree with you about Schröder. I think he is really of historic consequence. In the next few days if I have time, I will tell you why.